3 ms·

> They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts. High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in

> They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts. High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in the recall of Governor Davis back in 2003. It may have been just as big a factor as the electricity crisis. Voters really don't like seeing their car registration fees go up.

bt848 7y ago
The fees are back up to where they used to be and the gas tax was also increased. An effort by various cavemen to repeal the act was soundly defeated last year. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Approval_for_Future_Gas_and_Vehicle_Taxes_and_2017_Tax_Repeal_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Appr...
mywittyname 7y ago
It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e., Raise fees on people buying new twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics. Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's largest market.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on. You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers. Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or hybrid vehicle. You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump. This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  So taxing the people who need work trucks is the punishment? That will just make the rest of us of pay for it in construction, farming, our own taxes through government purchase of work vehicles for infrastructure purposes, electricity work trucks, cargo trucks. Everything gets more expensive and has the potential to effect even those who are in poverty who work those jobs as the employer can't afford extra employees due to the extra cost in trucks. Leaving a group of potential workers without employment. You also negatively affect those who want to start a business (landscaping, catering, delivery). They now have to raise even more money to begin. Regulations have downsides that may not be immediately apparent. California is already so stupidly expensive because of regulations it doesn't need to force it though. There is nothing stopping the manufacturers to continue being clean?
taylodl 7y ago
Then use emissions testing to establish a credit against state income taxes, which would then be raised modestly.
yongjik 7y ago
Hmm, yes voters hate hiking fees, but a lot of Californians also hate Trump with a passion - I have a feeling that many will support a hike on vehicles they will themselves never drive, if it's sold as "protecting the environment against Trump."
- twblalock 7y ago
  What "vehicles they will themselves never drive" are you thinking of? I'm in Silicon Valley and I see large SUVs and pickup trucks and gas-guzzling performance cars everywhere I look. In the rest of California there are even more SUVs and trucks.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    > What "vehicles they will themselves never drive" are you thinking of? ...Vehicles that are currently illegal in California due to stricter emission control? (Unless I'm missing something...)
    - bt848 7y ago
      There aren’t any. Nobody makes “49-state” vehicles any more because New York and several other rich, populous states adopted the CARB standard. Only motorcycles are still made without California emissions.

bt848 7y ago

The fees are back up to where they used to be and the gas tax was also increased. An effort by various cavemen to repeal the act was soundly defeated last year. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Approval_for_Future_Gas_and_Vehicle_Taxes_and_2017_Tax_Repeal_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Appr...

mywittyname 7y ago

It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e., Raise fees on people buying new twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics. Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's largest market.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on. You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers. Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or hybrid vehicle. You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump. This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)
sieabahlpark 7y ago
So taxing the people who need work trucks is the punishment? That will just make the rest of us of pay for it in construction, farming, our own taxes through government purchase of work vehicles for infrastructure purposes, electricity work trucks, cargo trucks. Everything gets more expensive and has the potential to effect even those who are in poverty who work those jobs as the employer can't afford extra employees due to the extra cost in trucks. Leaving a group of potential workers without employment. You also negatively affect those who want to start a business (landscaping, catering, delivery). They now have to raise even more money to begin. Regulations have downsides that may not be immediately apparent. California is already so stupidly expensive because of regulations it doesn't need to force it though. There is nothing stopping the manufacturers to continue being clean?

taylodl 7y ago

Then use emissions testing to establish a credit against state income taxes, which would then be raised modestly.

yongjik 7y ago

Hmm, yes voters hate hiking fees, but a lot of Californians also hate Trump with a passion - I have a feeling that many will support a hike on vehicles they will themselves never drive, if it's sold as "protecting the environment against Trump."

twblalock 7y ago
What "vehicles they will themselves never drive" are you thinking of? I'm in Silicon Valley and I see large SUVs and pickup trucks and gas-guzzling performance cars everywhere I look. In the rest of California there are even more SUVs and trucks.
- yongjik 7y ago
  > What "vehicles they will themselves never drive" are you thinking of? ...Vehicles that are currently illegal in California due to stricter emission control? (Unless I'm missing something...)
  - bt848 7y ago
    There aren’t any. Nobody makes “49-state” vehicles any more because New York and several other rich, populous states adopted the CARB standard. Only motorcycles are still made without California emissions.